ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Simulation and empirical evaluation of biologically-informed neural network performance.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biologically-informed neural networks (BiNNs) offer interpretable deep learning models for biological data, but the dataset characteristics required for strong performance remain poorly understood. For instance, we previously developed P-NET, a BiNN with an architecture based on the Reactome pathway database, and applied this model to predict metastatic status of patients with prostate cancer using somatic mutation and copy number information. It seems likely that including additional relevant signal - e.g., germline variation in this context - should improve model performance, but we currently lack a principled approach to assess whether BiNNs will successfully detect this signal. Here, we developed two simulation frameworks to evaluate the factors that influence BiNN performance - including signal type, signal strength, feature sparsity, and sample size - and empirically tested how integrating germline and somatic data affects the model's ability to predict prostate cancer metastatic status. Simulations revealed that small sample size, weak signal strength, and especially extreme feature sparsity limit BiNN performance, and that the model preferentially uses linear over nonlinear signal. Empirically, P-NET performed poorly on sparse germline data, and while adding germline to somatic data did not improve prediction, it improved gene prioritization and model interpretation. Broadly, our simulation frameworks enable systematic evaluation of how dataset-level characteristics affect BiNN performance and provide a principled framework for benchmarking novel methods.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.